Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Emma Cline’s Masterful (and Quite Traditional) Manson-Family Debut Novel


In The Girls, her first novel, Emma Cline has taken the story of the Manson Family as a template and made her own sly alterations. Some of these are cosmetic: The setting is moved from Southern California to the outskirts of the Bay Area; no historical names are retained. Others are in the interest of streamlining the narrative: A few characters seem to be composites of real-life figures and several wholly imagined; the predictions of a Beatles-themed apocalyptic race war that Manson was spouting before the Family’s murders (he called it “Helter Skelter”) have been entirely dispensed with. Cline has retained the essential structure of a gang of hippies living in hedonistic squalor on a remote ranch, the women sexually in thrall to a buckskin-clad charismatic leader who keeps them around with the shared delusion that he’s destined to become a rock superstar. A grisly night of speed-fueled murders goes down, and there’s blood on the wall. Cline’s crucial decision, signaled in her title, is to tell the story in the voice of a minor, off-and-on member of the re-imagined cult. Now middle-aged and looking back on the strange summer of 1969, when she was 14, Evie Boyd is a narrator in the mold of Nick Carraway, but her Gatsby isn’t the Manson figure (here renamed Russell Hadrick). It’s a woman named Suzanne Parker, one of the murderers and a figure with a charismatic power all her own.

The Manson horror show has been chewed over in too many books, films, and other pop-culture ephemera to count. And though the murderers Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten, and Charles “Tex” Watson, as well as Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, who later attempted to assassinate Gerald Ford, accrued their own repertory celebrity, the focus of Manson lit — from the Rolling Stone cover story that dropped during the trial, to prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s best seller Helter Skelter, to Jeff Guinn’s excellent 2013 biography Manson — is usually on the maestro, who still makes the news when he gets engaged from prison or has a birthday (he’s now 81). A bogus meme this spring had it that he’d endorsed Donald Trump for president. Reviewing Guinn’s book when it appeared, I found exposure to videos of Manson’s recent parole hearings toxic enough to be nightmare-inducing. For the baby-boomers, the Manson episode lingers with Altamont as one of the bad dreams that closed the book for 1960s utopianism. Cline approaches the story without those hang-ups. A 27-year-old graduate of the Columbia MFA program, whose fiction has appeared in the Paris Review and Tin House, she’s shrewdly reasoned that we’ve heard enough about Charlie. In the cult dynamic, she’s seen something universal — emotions, appetites, and regular human needs warped way out of proportion — and in her novel she’s converted a quintessentially ’60s story into something timeless. (It hasn’t gone unreported that her efforts earned her a $2 million advance from Random House.)

The Girls has a retrospective frame. When it begins, Evie Boyd is a middle-aged woman, out of work and living in a borrowed house on the Northern California coast. Unexpected guests arrive in the middle of the night, and her frightened mind jumps back in time, to the night of the murders. The guests turn out not to be intruders but Julian, the college-age son of the house’s owner, and his 18-year-old girlfriend, Sasha. Their youth and delinquency — Julian smuggles pot and was thrown out of school for poisoning a professor’s dog — reminds her of her own seduction by Suzanne into Russell’s cult.

The decades that have passed allow Evie to understand it all with some clarity. When just out of junior high, she was drawn in from a place of unhappiness: her parents newly divorced, her crush on an older boy unrequited, her friendship with the boy’s sister going sour. She glimpses the “black-haired girl,” Suzanne, from afar, in a park pulling at the neckline of her dress and for a moment exposing a nipple. The excitement is part attraction, part identification — it’s a public demonstration of perverse impulses Evie recognizes in herself. She sees Suzanne and her “attendants” take a bag of bread and an uncooked chicken from a restaurant dumpster, get shouted away by a man in an apron, and climb into a school bus painted black. On their next encounter, in a shop where Suzanne is thrown out when the shop's owner recognizes her from a previous theft, Evie returns to buy for Suzanne the toilet paper she was after, saying she stole it to impress her new friend; a few days later, Suzanne invites the younger girl to the cult’s ranch and assumes the role of big sister, lover, protector, groomer, and corrupter.

Cline’s true subject is the tangle between Evie and Suzanne’s bond and the cult’s internal economy. Within the closed system of the ranch, the women of the cult are at once commodities and procurers of food and money, venturing out into the straight world to commit little acts of larceny. The first day Evie visits, a boy asks Suzanne if she’s a “solstice present” and is told to shut up. But when the evening’s party commences — a car is ritually burned, and there’s a feast of “watery vegetable pabulum, the mash of potatoes and ketchup and onion soup packets” — another of the girls calls Evie “our sacrifice ... Our solstice offering.” She meets Russell, and he takes her to his trailer with the promise, unfulfilled, that they’ll be joined by Suzanne. A sexual initiation follows. “I wanted Russell to be a genius,” Evie says.

She gets stoned, and he turns out to be a reciter of lines like these: “Shy Evie .... You’re a smart girl. You see a lot with those eyes, don’t you.” “I’m like you  ... I was so smart when I was young, so smart that of course they told me I was dumb.” “There’s something in you ... Some part that’s real sad. And you know what? That makes me real sad. They’ve tried to ruin this beautiful, special girl. They’ve made her sad. Just because they are.” She starts to cry, and a page later he’s pushing her head toward his crotch.
“An act, I thought, calibrated to comfort young girls who were glad, at least, that it wasn’t sex. Who could stay fully dressed the whole time, as if nothing out of the ordinary were happening.”
“But maybe the strangest part — I liked it, too.”

This is the most we see of Russell and the “undercooked look of his dick.” For Evie this episode is less a matter of her submission to the cult leader than her initiation into a sisterhood. Evie spends the rest of the night with Suzanne: “You can crash in my room if you want," she says. “But you have to actually be here if you’re going to be here. Get it?” To Evie the moment was like “those fairy tales where goblins can enter a house only if invited by its inhabitants,” only here she’s the innocent invited into a house of goblins. She doesn’t realize it yet but instead senses “the possibility that my life was hovering on the brink of a new and permanent happiness.” Evie goes home the next day, and becomes a thief for her new friends at the ranch, stealing from her mother’s purse and hustling the boy next door for $65 of his parents’ money with the promise of bringing him weed. At Russell’s suggestion, Suzanne takes her to the home of Mitch Lewis — a rocker composite of Beach Boy drummer Dennis Wilson and Byrds producer Terry Melcher, the men Manson hoped would grease his path to stardom — and they have a coke-fueled threesome, the end of Evie’s virginity: “I’d enacted some pattern, been defined, neatly, as a girl, providing a known value. There was something almost comforting about it, the clarity of purpose, even as it shamed me.”

For the rest of the novel Evie ping-pongs between the ranch and her old life — the mingling of her sense of belonging with crude transactional sex has poisoned the fun, but neither can she go home again. Her final visit to the ranch sees Russell’s group in a state of high desperation, seemingly starving and deranged with access to more speed than food. Russell dispatches the killers — Suzanne among them, Evie almost — to Mitch’s house “to teach him a lesson,” and they commit something like the massacre visited on Sharon Tate and her friends. Cline’s decision to substitute a simple revenge plot for the baroque paranoid end-times scenario Manson improvised to maintain Family discipline makes sense for her book. She knows her strengths are psychological, not Pynchonian.

 Cline has a lush descriptive style, and she favors the sentence fragment where the pressure falls on nouns: on one visit to the ranch she sees the “silty rectangle of pool, half full, with its teem of algae and exposed concrete ... The crispy package of a dead frog, drifting on the surface.” A system of metaphors drawn from Evie’s middle-class world animates her departure from it. (There are a few too many like-dependent similes, but one gets used to them.) Cline’s exquisite set pieces are the equal of her intricate unwinding of Evie’s emotions: Even after the murders she thinks, “Suzanne was not a good person. I understood this. But I held the actual knowledge away from myself.” When she finds Polaroids from Suzanne she feels something more like love but knows she’s also stifling disgust.

These effects are all the more potent for what Cline has left out. There’s very little cultural noise in the picture. Evie reads a few magazines, watches an episode of Bewitched, and there’s a reference to Jefferson Airplane, but Cline hasn’t overloaded the book with ostentatious period details and trivia. (Nor did I notice any anachronisms.) The Girls isn’t a Wikipedia novel, it’s not one of those historical novels that congratulates the present on its improvements over the past, and it doesn’t impose today’s ideas on the old days. As the smartphone-era frame around Evie’s story implies, Cline is interested in the Manson chapter for the way it amplifies the novel’s traditional concerns. Pastoral, marriage plot, crime story — the novel of the cult has it all. You wonder why more people don’t write them. 


katie8753 said...

This article sounds like the author thought up the "revenge" motive for TLB. That motive has been bandied about for years. It's nothing new. It's the motive I've always ascribed to.

The main character seems to be Leslie.

starship said...

Thanks, Katie,

I am going to Kindle this just as soon as it comes out.

Mrstormsurge said...

did not know where to post this but many here are interested in other high profile murder cases:

Casey Anthony killed her daughter and had sex with her defense lawyer in exchange for legal services, according to court documents filed in Florida. Anthony, who represented by attorney Jose Baez, was acquitted in 2011 of her daughter's murder. Baez has denied that he had a sexual relationship with the Florida mother, according to media reports published Wednesday.

The allegations from private investigator Dominic Casey are laid out in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing submitted to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Tampa in April. Casey, who worked for Baez, claims the lawyer told him in July 2008 that Anthony murdered her daughter and "dumped the body somewhere, and he needed all the help he could get to find the body before anyone else did." Casey resigned from the case a few months later.

Casey detailed in the documents how he once found Anthony naked in Baez's office. Casey "told (Anthony) that she cannot allow (Baez) to continue engaging in this behavior," the investigator wrote in the affidavit. "Casey told me she had to do what Jose said because she had no money for her defense." The documents claim Baez demanded oral sex for organizing media interviews. ABC News published the court documents here.

Baez told People magazine the allegations were untrue. "I unequivocally and categorically deny exchanging sex for legal services with Ms. Anthony," he said. "I further unequivocally and categorically deny having any sexual relationship with Ms. Anthony whatsoever."

Anthony was arrested in 2008 for child neglect after her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony, went missing. The child was last seen on June 16, but authorities weren't notified until July 15. The child's body was later found near the family's home in Orlando.

Mrstormsurge said...

the above is from:

katie8753 said...

Thanks Stormy. There were allegations that there was something sexual going on between Jose & Casey all during the trial. They were always whispering to each other and she was very flirtatious with him.

I can't understand why this guy didn't go to the prosecution with this stuff before the trial.

Dilligaf said...

As an investigator for the defense at the time, all discussions were considered work product, and protected by Attorney-Client privilege, thus procluding him fro sharing this with the prosecution. Subsequently, during the BK hearing, it could have delayed things by making that claim. However, since the defendant was acquitted, there was little to no harm that could have done. But, I would wager that the Florida State Bar is going to be very interested in a certain defense counsel....

katie8753 said...

Thanks Dill. It's too bad that Double Jeopardy prevents her from being tried again. I'm sure she killed her daughter. I've never doubted it.

I was thinking the other day how Casey lied for TWO YEARS, dressing up and leaving the house, supposedly heading to work, when she didn't even have a job.


She lied to her mother for 30 days about her whereabouts in June of 2008, all the while knowing that Caylee was dead.

She stole money from her parents, her grandparents and her friends. I wouldn't doubt for one minute that she had an inappropriate relationship with Jose. Just par for the course for that lying piece of shit.

katie8753 said...

I certainly hope that Casey Anthony jury is feeling lank and loopy right now.

beauders said...

I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias are two true sociopaths.

sunset77 said...

Off topic comment:

I was reading about an inmate that was beaten to death at Mule Creek Prison, I assume the same prison where Charles "Tex" Watson is still held. Somehow, I ran across a story where Watson apparently sent a letter to Wikipedia requesting the Wiki page about him be altered. Whether or not Watson himself actually sent the letter is unknown, but there is a link to the PDF file, you can guess for yourself.

The article is HERE.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Sunset. You'd think the last thing Tex would be worried about was Wiki. LOL.

katie8753 said...

Beauders you're right, Jodi and Casey are both sociopaths.

It's funny that they both killed someone in June of 2008, they were both arrested in July of 2008, and they both lied their asses off in police interrogations for DAYS. The only difference is Casey didn't do a headstand and sing songs in the interrogation room.

sunset77 said...

Off topic comment:

Apparently, The Monkees have released a new album.

"Nesmith was playing at the Troubador when a friend came in and said, "'I just saw this ad in Variety. I think you should go down and try out for it.' So I did. I got the job." He went to the audition in the same knit cap he'd wear for the show.

Dolenz didn't go to the cattle-call; as a child actor he'd had the lead in a show called "Circus Boy."

Tork, a folk singer, heard about the auditions from his friend Stephen Stills, who'd been passed over: "So Stephen had to settle for Crosby Stills Nash & Young. He's never forgiven me!" Full article-->HERE.

Davy Jones passed away a while back. I haven't looked it up completely, but I think one of the songs from the new album can be heard here-->You Bring the Summer.

louis365 said...

Sunset...I see that Tex has no problem with the Helter Skelter part being on his Wiki page.

Marliese said...

Hi Sunset, enjoy your off topic posts...always fun info. You probably know that most of the Circus Boy locations were the Iverson Ranch area...just across Santa Susanna Rd from Spahn's Movie Ranch. Some Wagon Train stuff was also done around Iverson, too... specifically Garden of the Gods and the Lone Ranger Rock. Wagon Train was also made in Thousand Oaks...Santa Monica Mtns, But the Rocky Peak, Iverson, Lone Ranger Rock area is very recognizable in those old shows, and others from that time period (Sphan's was dilapidated and falling apart by then...its time had come and gone, except for the horses).
A bit of trivia for Bob, if you're around the blog Bob, you once said you like The Rockford Files...Noah Beery Jr, James Garner's father, Rocky, on the show, was also a regular on Circus Boy...!

katie8753 said...

Hi Marliese! Good to see you!

Marliese said...

Hi Katie! Thanks for the warm welcome, as always. With so many classic tv and western channels now, we can see Rocky Peak as it was back in the day just about whenever we turn on the tv! It's built up there now, on the Rocky Peak side...houses, condos...but I wouldn't live there if they paid, dry, fire risk, critters and snakes, surrounded by God awful traffic on the Reagan Fwy!

Bobby said...

Hi Marliese,

I'm still here. Circus Boy, Wow I had to google that one. Uncle Joe the clown. Thanks to you and Sunset for all the fun info. Hope all is well with you.

Bobby said...

Uncle Joey the clown.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I loved the Rockford Files!

That was the best theme song and show opener, EVER!
The music... that gold car... the answering machine... Classic!

"This is Jim Rockford. At the tone leave your name and message, I'll get back to you."

Remember his buddy "Angel"?

Good times...

Hey Marliese!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


Marliese said...

There you are, Bobby! .Circus Boy was old reruns even when I was little...the first era of nostalgia TV! ...Saturday mornings with Sky King, Fury, Circus Boy, I think Roy Rogers and Dale Evans were in there somewhere too. Great to see you, Bobby!

Marliese said...

Hey Lynyrd! You have loyal followers. :)
James Garner and good. Yeah, Stuart Margolin's Angel...what a character he was...and the police guy...Dennis, great guest stars too...on and on...good writing, beach and Los Angeles locations, cars and chase scenes etc etc but James Garner made it real....

Surgio said...

Several alligators in the posts say flat out that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. The jury found Casey not guilty of murder and related crimes.

It's arrogant as hell in view of the jury findings to say with authority that Anthony killed her daughter and disposed of the body, as if those on the sidelines have a better judgment than the jurors. Jurors saw the evidence, they evaluated the testimony, and they discussed the merits of the state case against Casey and ruled there existed reasonable doubt.

I watched most of the trial on court TV. The state pulled the case green, the prosecutor was a joke, and the nigger judge was incompetent. The jury likely saw the Judge as a know nothing siding with the prosecution. Doctor G stepped on her dick in testimony as well and her program took a dive.

The state had a slam-dunk case, an attractive white defendant, her child missing and she telling so many lies she couldn't keep them straight (typical female). It didn't work out well, there was the matter of the jury.

Casey Anthony is the new Leslie Van Houten in a sense. Leslie is white, and like Casey, it's socially acceptable to hate on her. After the Casey trial dozens of white protesters gathered outside disagreeing with the acquittal. They were moral preening. It was a display to show other whites how they cared and how moral and ethical they were.

For those who sign petitions to keep Leslie in the pen, it's the same; virtue signaling. Leslie and Casey are easy targets.

I am inclined in favor of Leslie's release and am tempted to write Moonbeam stating such. It's not my call. The parole board ruled her fit for release. In past hearings I thought the Board mistaken in judging Leslie a danger, but they saw something about her that gave them pause. I had to defer to the Board then as I do now.

The law is dispassionate and unbiased at least ideally. If the system bends to public opinion one way or another, we might just put Leslie's name on an internet survey: Parole or No Parole. Thumbs up or thumbs down. Petitioning one way or another is BS. The only reason the governor reviews released murderers is to keep Ted Bundy types locked up. Florida executed Ted, a real lady killer he was.

Leslie offers whites a chance to say, "Leslie and the Manson family were ray-cyst. See I want to keep her in for those race motivated crimes, see, see, look at how pure I am, not a ray-cyst bone." Then they can go to Starbucks in their electric car plastered with Obumer 2012 logos and brag about how moral they are. This is using the victims in the worse kind of way.

Technically, Leslie was not motivated by the race war aspect. She committed murder in the course of a burglary of a residence. The motive was material gain.

The law is law. If Leslie meets the criteria for release, so be it

What a pretty woman Emma is. I may buy her book based simply on her looks. I bought Dawn Schiller's book, The Road Through Wonderland because Dawn seemed so handsome. Turned out after reading the book, she has a heart of gold. What an ordeal she went through.

Sieg Heil

katie8753 said...

Casey Anthony did kill her daughter and dump her in the swamp. The evidence is overwhelming, and just because 12 jurors didn't see it that way, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The defense just hammered away at how crazy the entire Anthony family is, and she got away with it.

Those jurors were tired of being locked up and hastily agreed on a verdict to get the hell out of there.

And to say that people think Casey is guilty or that Leslie shouldn't get out just because they are white girls has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

katie8753 said...

And I watched the trial every day, but it wasn't on Court TV, it was on Tru TV, which is now HLN.

Marliese said...

Surgio, what's up with the n word? ...Throw that filthy n word around and nothing else you say matters.

I guess the Casey Anthony jurors wanted Indelible proof...a confession, witnesses, and surveillance cameras showing her duct taping, drugging, and dumping her baby...whatever, they just couldn't or wouldn't connect the dots. Sometimes, I think, jurors dont understand that the million to one chance (or other extreme odds) that the accused person did not do this is not "reasonable" doubt, it may be doubt, but it's unreasoned. And they side with those odds, feeling she'll ultimately be judged in another life. I suppose, I don't know. What was really upsetting was hearing that some of the jurors were distraught and crying because they felt they had to say not guilty. As jurors, I don't think you can pull "not guilty" out of your imagination.."but what if..." just because the evidence is circumstantial...sometimes, the truth is in the circumstances...and common sense.

katie8753 said...

Well said Marliese. So true.

The defense just threw all kinds of things at the wall hoping something would stick. They honed in on George: (1) Caylee drowned in the pool and George dumped her in the swamp in a trash bag (ridiculous!); (2) George molested Casey; (3) George had an affair; (4) George tried to kill himself. They were hoping to focus on George and get the focus off Casey.

Unfortunately for the Prosecution, little Caylee's body was too far gone to determine exactly how she died, so it was an assumption on the DA's side what happened to her, but I can't imagine the jury finding her not guilty just based on that.

Casey lied over and over again about EVERYTHING, and even her mom said that her car smelled like a dead body. She said that in the very beginning when she called the cops on Casey.

Casey evidently killed Caylee and put her in the trunk of her car and left her there until she couldn't get away with it anymore because of the smell, and then she shrewdly abandoned her car next to a garbage dumpster so people would think the smell was coming from there.

Just the fact that she lied for a month about Caylee's whereabouts, lied about Zanny the Nanny kidnapping her and having a car that smell liked decomposition would have been enough for me to vote guilty.

grimtraveller said...

Marliese said...

Sometimes, I think, jurors don't understand that the million to one chance (or other extreme odds) that the accused person did not do this is not "reasonable" doubt, it may be doubt, but it's unreasoned. And they side with those odds, feeling she'll ultimately be judged in another life

In his book "Trial by your peers" William Zamora makes, among others, this interesting statement: "How often does one have the opportunity to undergo the highest responsibility of mankind ? I thought it was the most important investment in anybody's life to be able to do. I was invested with the most powerful duty anybody can do, to judge another man's life. This was life, life and judge whether these people were right or wrong, whether they committed these crimes........And I thought I'm not going to defeat the purpose with which I had been invested and I want to do my best because I'm not doing it for myself. I'm doing it for the entire world; for the community where I reside; for all the people. I could not help thinking that this was the most important thing that had ever been given to me....a decision to make."

While he acknowledges that there are jurors {he'd been on a jury twice, prior to TLB} that don't care or that just want to get it over with, it's a fair assumption that there are those that approach it with the utmost seriousness and reasonable doubt will naturally look different to someone that doesn't agree with the verdict arrived at. After all, what may be reasonable to me may not be to someone else. To me for example, given a combination of the winds of change blowing throughout the world but particularly in the West at the time, LSD and other psychedelic drugs, the religious upbringings that many if not most Westerners had during the 40s/50s, the messages in the music and reinforced in the newly emerging music & underground press and revolutionary fervour, among other things, it's reasonable to me that a bunch of people could believe that a man that had spent most of his life incarcerated and was living to tell the tale might be Christ and be shaped by his concepts. Whereas many others would scoff at that and see nothing reasonable about it at all. And from where they stand, they wouldn't be wrong.
Another thing with juries is that miscarriages of justice loom large in the mind and therefore one has to be absolutely sure of what one is doing. The way evidence is presented and explained {or explained away} will also have a huge effect on how comfortable a juror and jury may be in arriving at their eventual decision. Either way, theirs is rarely a simple job.

grimtraveller said...

Marliese said...

I guess the Casey Anthony jurors wanted Indelible proof

Is that unreasonable, if sometimes unrealistic ? If the burden of proof is on the state then the state has to be able to justify why it has brought the case to trial and it's their responsibility to make that evidence stand up in such a way that a guilty person really has to go through the wringer if they're going to beat the rap. And then some.
If I was on a jury, if I'm going to convict someone to a possible death sentence from which there will be no return, I want as close to indelible, infallible proof as is possible, not clever arguments or reliance on "a feeling."

Marliese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marliese said...

Hi Katie, Have you heard what kind of life Casey Anthony is living these days? I wonder if she repaired her relationship with her parents, wonder where she lives, how she supports herself etc etc. I hope she never has another child.

Remember, back when she was acquitted, there was an opinion that her lawyer would do well as a result...I wonder how that played out for him. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Always good to see you.

Oh and the other one...Jodi...wonder how her days in prison are going, she's probably out of Joe Arpaio's jurisdiction now, don't you think, and in a permanent prison situation elsewhere in Arizona.

Marliese said...

Sorry for delete..tough to edit on iPad sometimes, and hit it too fast

katie8753 said...

Marliese, as far as I know, Casey has been sponging off folks since her release, just as she has been sponging off various people her entire adult life. She made a video that was on You Tube about how her life was great now (I guess without the responsibility of a little girl), while, I think, she was living with the other attorney that defended her, Cheney Mason. Everybody who offers her room & board get tired of her really fast, so they keep handing her off one to another. She claims she can't work because of her notoriety, but I don't know what her excuse was before she killed her baby girl, since she's never held a job down in her life.

Rumor has it she was gonna start a photog business, but I doubt she has the tenacity to hold down any job for more than a week.

I don't think her parents have anything to do with her anymore. In fact, I don't even know if they are still married.

I read a while back that Jose Baez was going to defend some ruthless killer (can't remember who, maybe the guy that killed people in the theater in CO?), but he's pretty much disappeared until now. He's got a lot to answer for if he was getting head for legal fees. LOL.

Yeah Jodi is in prison now, away from Joe Arpaio. She's got appeals going, but she'll never get out.

Always good to see you too Marliese! :)

Marliese said...

Thanks for the three hole update, Katie...! Hadn't heard anything about her lately.

Marliese said...

And the baby killing skank too...

Bobby said...


I don't know how you got sucked into the whole white man good every one else bad gig. I will be praying that as you mature and have met more people that you come to realize just how destructive your current path is and will continue be.

katie8753 said...

Bobby!!!!!! Good to see you! :)

Marliese said...

I second that...great to see you, Bobby!!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Marliese said:
"Surgio, what's up with the n word? ...Throw that filthy n word around and nothing else you say matters".

That's exactly, what I was thinking.

Sometimes I begin reading Surgio's comments, and I think: He's making some sense. There's a few ounces of truth here. But then... I stumble upon 3 miles of racist sludge, and he loses me.

When you force your readers to wade through 3 miles of racist mud, you lose all credibility.

I'm not sure if Surgio is seeking legitimate credibility (based upon the content of his posts)... OR, if he's simply seeking attention by being "provocative".
Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways... and he leans towards the latter.

grimtraveller said...

Marliese said...

The Rockford Files...Noah Beery Jr, James Garner's father, Rocky, on the show, was also a regular on Circus Boy...!

I also really dug "The Rockford Files." One of the great easy going yet compelling American dramas. James Garner was a very good actor and unintentionally funny. I loved his voiceover parts as God {that looked just like Jerry Garcia from the Grateful Dead} in "God, the Devil and Bob."
Speaking of "Circus Boy" I'm currently reading Micky Dolenz's autobiography. Less than 10 pages in it's already funny and gripping. I think Dolenz was probably my first TV hero, back when I was around 3. I loved the Monkees TV show and my younger sister and I loved anyone or anything called "Mickey" so he was a natural target for our affections........Oddly enough, even though he's naturally funny and zany, for me he's the least funny of the 4. Michael Nesmith & Peter Tork were way out ahead when it came to humour and Davy Jones was just sort of.....English !

Surgio said...

Technically, Leslie was not motivated by the race war aspect. She committed murder in the course of a burglary of a residence. The motive was material gain

If you mean legally, because of the prosecutorial stitch up in 1978, there's much truth in that. But in actuality, it couldn't be further from the truth if one tried. The one thing that all these years later stands head and shoulders above anything else in this case is the fact that if there was one person that one can say was motivated by the race war aspect, it was Leslie. Indeed, she's possibly the only one that this has applied to all the way down the line.